Issue Backgrounder

independence 14142 Denver West Parkway • Suite 185 • Golden, Colorado 80401
institute www.IndependenceInstitute.org • 303-279-6536

Number: 2003-D
Date: July 10, 2003

“You Cannot Avoid Traffic”... and Other Myths

High Occupancy Toll Lanes Guarantee a
Congestion Free Choice
By Jon Caldara

Background: HOV Falls Short tion-free options do exist. Twenty years ago,
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or car-
“This idea will solve traffic congestion perma-
pool/diamond lanes as they are often called,
nently.” No credible transportation official
were the transit-fad that led to these conges-
ever seems to say this anymore. Certainly,
tion-free trips. These are lanes separate from
many will
Change in Commuter Mode Use the normal
imply that the
“general-pur-
latest transit- Drives alone
10% Carpool
pose” lanes of
fad will some-
5%
travel, often
how, magical-
0%
providing
ly reduce traf-
Percentage

many miles of
fic and con- -5%
reserved
gestion, but -10%
laneage, for
they know -15%
those who car-
that no invest- -20%
pool or ride
ment will ever -25%
1985 - 1993 1993-1999
the bus.
solve conges- Year
Provided you
tion.
carpooled, you would enjoy a congestion-free
Nonetheless, in many U.S. urban areas conges-
trip on the HOV lanes.

Page 1
The HOV advocates imagined that ordinary making an uncongested trip without changing
commuters would flock to carpools and buses, to a carpool or riding the bus. Offering this
doing anything to escape the horrors of traffic; option to drivers can also provide the same
the increased carpooling and bus riding would congestion-free benefit to carpoolers.
benefit everyone, with lower pollution,
decreased congestion, and reduced stress. HOV lanes currently feature “unused space,”
or as transportation planners refer to it,
Somewhere between wish and reality, things “excess capacity.” The Reason Public Policy
didn’t work out so well. Although HOV lanes Institute studied HOV systems in various met-
are relatively successful at moving people (at ropolitan areas and found that the typical
least in HOV lanes oriented towards central HOV lane nationwide has 950 vehicles per
business districts), many of the HOV users are hour and 2275 persons per hour. Although
people who simply moved from the general- the total number of persons per hour is gener-
purpose lanes to the HOV lanes. To make ally higher than in the adjacent general-pur-
matters worse, carpooling has declined dra- pose lanes (2000 persons per hour on average
matically nationwide since HOV lanes were for a congested lane), the HOV lanes could
widely implemented.1 It seems the conven- carry 45 percent more vehicles and still flow
ience of the personal automobile still warrant- at 55 miles per hour. This ability to carry 750
ed putting up with the horrors of traffic and more vehicles per lane is typical of HOV
congestion. lanes’ excess capacity.
Table 2: Comparative Throughput of HOV Lanes and HOT Network
Typ. HOV-2 Typ. HOV-3 Ideal HOV-3 HOT Network
SOVs (avg. 1.1 person/veh.) 0 0 0 1100
HOV-2s (avg. 2.1 person/veh.) 788 0 0 300
HOV-3s (avg. 3.2 person/veh.) 150 350 1200 200
Vanpool (avg. 7.0 person/veh.) 10 20 20 60
Express bus (avg. 35 person/veh.) 2 3 40 40
Vehicles/hour 950 373 1260 1700
Persons/hour 2275 1365 5380 4300

Reason Public Policy Institute2

An Alternative: Merging Toll Roads
with HOV Lanes
There may, however, be a way to guarantee
that a driver would always have the choice of
For example, on the North I-25 HOV lanes in
Denver, Colorado, a facility widely-regarded as
successful by HOV advocates, carpools and
buses use only 30 percent of the total conges-

1
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000”,
http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2000/chapter4/commuting_to_work_fig1.html.
2
Robert W. Poole & C. Kenneth Orski, “HOT Networks: A New Plan for Congestion Relief and Better Transit,” Reason
Public Policy Institute (February 2003), p. 13.

Page 2
tion-free capacity at the rush hour. That option to use a lane guaranteed to be conges-
means that more than 70 percent of the capac- tion-free.
ity in HOV lanes is wasted during peak peri-
How HOT Lanes Work
ods. Over the total hours that the HOV lanes
are open, over 80 percent of the facility capac- How can the HOT lane be guaranteed to be
ity is wasted. In other words, HOV lanes can congestion-free? As more drivers choose to
actually accommodate several times the num- use the HOT lane, price of the toll increases,
ber of vehicles currently using the lanes, with- thereby discouraging additional drivers from
out causing any congestion or slowdown in choosing it. The toll on the I-15 HOT lanes in
these lanes. San Diego changes every few minutes, with
the price shown on electronic signs. Since
The problem of excess capacity is already traffic moves at full speed in the HOT lane,
apparent to the public. The wasted space led the speed of carpools and buses is unaffected.
to public resentment in northern New Jersey,
eventually leading to the elimination of HOV Commuters who use the HOT lane, whether
lanes on I-287 and I-80. The traveling public bus riders, carpoolers or single occupants, will
in Minnesota, California, Washington, and never be slowed down by ugly, old-fashioned
Virginia has recently raised its own voice A toll booths. Tolls are collected elec-
about the misuse of HOV lanes, HOT lane allows tronically via windshield-mounted
although none of these states have single occupant vehi- transponders.
seen any HOV elimination as of cles to use the lane, in
exchange for paying a toll
yet. Even so, HOV lanes are facili- which varies in price Because there is a variable toll on
ties under siege, and their demise is based on how congest- the HOT lanes, a toll that increas-
more a question of “when,” rather ed the lane is. es with increasing congestion and
than “if” – unless measures are taken to decreases with decreasing congestion,
improve their use. individual drivers make an “on-the-spot” deci-
sion as to whether paying the current toll rate
The solution is to turn the underused High warrants the benefit of a congestion-free trip.
Occupancy Vehicle lanes into High The fee is essential to managing traffic in the
Occupancy Toll, or HOT, lanes. A HOT lane HOT lanes, so as to ensure the lanes never
allows single occupant vehicles to use the become congested. As demonstrated by HOT
lane, in exchange for paying a toll which varies lanes elsewhere in the United States, the vari-
in price based on how congested the lane is. able toll ensures that the demand for the facili-
Simply put, drivers stuck in the traffic jam of ty is managed, such that congestion never
the general purpose lanes will finally have the occurs in the HOT lanes.

Page 3
HOT Lane Benefits HOV lanes. With HOT lanes, HOV
lanes are no longer for the exclusive use
• Choice. Mass transit advocates, with
of carpoolers and buses; the lanes are
their nearly insatiable appetite for more
facilities that can be used by all
and more tax subsidies, argue that com-
motorists – provided they are willing to
muters need a choice. HOT lanes pro-
pay a fee. Carpoolers may continue to
vide choice without requiring tax
use the lanes for free; only people who
increases. The user pays. In fact, mass
drive alone must pay the toll.
transit derives a huge windfall HOT
Additionally, adjacent general-pur-
from HOT lanes. As single lanes present an
opportunity for new pose lanes remain unchanged –
occupants voluntarily pay for
road capacity to be they are toll-free, but they also may
the maintenance and expan- built without raising be congested in peak periods.
sion of HOT lanes, bus riders taxes or cutting
and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) rid- programs.
• Revenue. Many states are deal-
ers have the benefit of new busways
ing with budget shortages. Road expan-
that transit agencies did not have to
sion, and even basic maintenance pro-
build. Single occupants thus finance
grams are being cut. HOT lanes present
facilities for buses and carpools.
an opportunity for new road capacity to
be built without raising taxes or cutting
• Safety. HOT lanes save lives. Given
programs. HOT lane revenue is used
that HOT lanes are never congested,
within the corridor that generates it; for
emergency vehicles — including ambu-
example, HOT lane revenue can be used
lances, fire trucks, and police — will
to pay off initial or expanded capital
never be slowed down by a traffic jam.
investment debt (such as original con-
As state and cities work on counter-ter-
struction or extension of an HOV /
rorism plans, congestion-free lanes
HOT facility), maintenance of infra-
might be critical.
structure on the facility, conversion of
HOV lanes to HOT, or other upgrades.
• Value. HOT lanes are a new way to 1)
HOT lane revenue is never used as a
provide the option for a guaranteed
“general fund” revenue source, nor
uncongested trip to all motorists, and,
should it be. Indeed, many state
2) preserve the uncongested trip for car-
statutes require toll and HOT lane rev-
poolers and buses. HOT lanes are
enue to be spent within the corridor
therefore a value-added, market-driven
from which the revenue is generated.
policy that modifies the nature of the

Page 4
HOT Lane Experience A December 2001 study by the San Diego
Association of Governments regarding the
HOT lanes
Best Way to Eliminate Congestion existing HOT
have already
- 1-15 FasTrak Users lanes on I-15
been imple-
found the fol-
mented on
Don’t know, 4% lowing results:4
California Build HOT
State Route Lanes, 49%
Add transit, 10% • 66% of non-
91 in Orange
users and 88%
County, I-15
of HOT lane
in San
users approved
Diego, and I- Build other roads, 13%
of the I-15 HOT
10 and US-
lanes;
290 in Widen regular lanes, 24% • 70% of voters
Houston.
agreed with the statement, “People who
California and Texas have been so satisfied
drive alone should be able to use the I-15
with their experiences that both states are well
Express lanes for a fee.” Greater support
underway to implementing expanded highway
was actually found among lower income
facilities that are financed, in part, by the use
voters (81% of less-than-$40,000-per-
of HOT user fees. On all of the aforemen-
year) than higher income (71% of more-
tioned facilities, carpooling and bus use
than-$100,000-per-year) voters.
increased 3 after the implementation of HOT
• 90% of HOT lane users and 73% of non-
lanes (contrary to the fears expressed by many
users stated that the HOT lanes “reduce
HOV advocates). Congestion never occurred
congestion on I-15.”
on the HOT lanes (contrary to warnings that
• When asked what was the “single most
HOT lanes might be overrun). Congestion
effective way to reduce congestion on I-
decreased slightly in the general-purpose lanes,
15,” HOT lanes were the top choice:
and the public expressed greater satisfaction
- Extend the HOT lanes (49% of HOT
with these corridors compared to when the
lane users; 37% of non-HOT lane
lanes were simply HOV. HOT lanes are a win-
users)
win proposition.

3
San Diego Association of Governments, Report to the California Legislature, “HOV Usage Increased Substantially By
49%” (Dec. 1999), p. 17 (report on San Diego’s I-15 during a three-year congestion pricing and transit development
demonstration program).
4
Wilbur Smith Associates “Public Opinion Research: I-15 Managed Lanes Extension” report presented by Ed Regan,
project manager, at the Annual Transportation Research Board conference, January 16, 2002. Survey of 800 (ran-
dom digit dialing) users of the I-15 corridor, 600 of which are non-users of the HOT lanes, 200 are regular users of
the HOT lanes. Survey has 95% confidence interval for actual public opinion being +/- 3.5% of the survey results.

Page 5
 - Add regular lanes (24% of HOT lane
users; 26% of non-HOT lane users)
- Build other roads (13% of HOT lane
users; 21% of non-HOT lane users)
- Add mass transit (10% of HOT lane
users; 11% of non-HOT lane users)
• Over 70% of both HOT lane users and
non-users stated that having single-occu-
pant vehicle use on I-15 express lanes
was fair.
In short, opponents of HOT lanes perpetuate
two myths: 1) that HOT lanes will reduce car-
pooling and bus riding, thereby increasing
congestion, and, 2) that the public will not
support HOT lanes, due to concerns of fair-
ness and equity. Clearly, the evidence from
California and Texas shows these claims to be
nothing more than myths.
Moving Forward: A Policy Agenda
for State and Federal Lawmakers
There are three primary ways state and federal
lawmakers can ensure HOV investments are
fully utilized by the traveling public:
1. Guarantee the public that HOV lanes will
be fully used after they are constructed.
Public frustration with underutilized
HOV lanes is understandable. The origi-
nal purpose of HOV lanes was to reduce
congestion by converting single-occupant
vehicle drivers to either carpoolers or
bus riders by offering a congestion-free
alternative to general-purpose lanes.
Since the adoption of HOV, though,
Page 6
growth in traffic has greatly outpaced
the growth in carpooling and bus riding.
Indeed, the 2000 census shows that
these two modes of travel have actually
declined as a percentage of all modes.
States should adopt policies that benefit
all taxpayers. Transportation agencies,
including state transportation depart-
ments and regional transit agencies,
must ensure full use of all HOV facilities.
“Full use” means that all available capac-
ity during peak periods must be utilized,
without degrading travel speeds within
the HOV lanes. The simplest way to
ensure full use is HOT lanes.
2. Incorporate HOT lanes as a standard
operating policy for HOV lanes.
Nationwide experience has shown that
most HOV lanes are greatly underuti-
lized, even in peak periods, creating the
underused highway space that so frus-
trates the public. HOT lanes require
slightly different operational parameters
than HOV lanes. However, many agen-
cies fail to plan for this flexibility of
adjustment when constructing HOV
lanes. For example, the Colorado
Department of Transportation, a depart-
ment with a statutory mandate to imple-
ment HOT lanes on I-25, is constructing
new HOV lanes on I-25 (a few miles
from the intended HOT lanes) that are
 largely incompatible with HOT lane
operations.
3. Restrictions on the implementation of
HOT lanes must be addressed by the feder-
al Department of Transportation (US
DOT) in the upcoming transportation
omnibus legislation (TEA-21 reauthoriza-
tion). Two primary restrictions in the
past five years have been used to prevent
HOT lanes implementation: 1) prohibi-
tion of single-occupant vehicles on HOV
lanes (regardless of whether the vehicles
pay a toll or not), and, 2) prohibition of
tolling on interstate highways. Both
restrictions were put in place before the
idea of HOT lanes was conceived. Both
restrictions are obsolete now that HOT
lanes provide a means of managing traf-
fic and congestion on HOV lanes, and
provide a new choice to travelers without
taking away any current benefits from
HOV users.
Conclusion
Evidence from the California and Texas expe-
riences dispel the false myths about HOT
lanes. Indeed, where HOT lanes are imple-
mented, they are successful, benefiting all and
supported by very large majorities. U.S. trans-
portation officials should not delay the imple-
mentation of positive transportation policies
simply because a few people spread false
myths. People who oppose a HOT lane
demonstration project are not opposing a trial
project because they fear that HOT lanes will
Page 7
fail. Rather, they oppose HOT lanes for the
fear that they will be successful. We can move
more vehicles more quickly at no additional
expense. Why don’t we just do it?
INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-prof-
it, non-partisan Colorado think tank. It is gov-
erned by a statewide board of trustees and
holds a 501(c)(3) tax exemption from the IRS.
Its public policy research focuses on economic
growth, education reform, health care policy,
housing and mobility solutions, local govern-
ment effectiveness, and constitutional rights.
JON CALDARA is the President of the
Independence Institute.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject
can be found at: http://IndependenceInstitute.org
NOTHING WRITTEN here is to be con-
strued as necessarily representing the views of
the Independence Institute or as an attempt to
influence any election or legislative action.
PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in
whole or in part is hereby granted provided
full credit is given to the Independence
Institute.
Copyright © 2003, Independence Institute